The State Supreme Court this week this week, in a decision certain to weaken Fourth Amendment protections further, upheld a warrantless search conducted by the Kenosha Police Department that resulted in the discovery of a marijuana grow room.

"The officers were not searching for evidence, but for injured parties."

"It is easy, after the fact, to say that there was not an injured person behind the locked door. But the police officers in this case had to rely solely on the facts they possessed at the time. Had there been a bludgeoned, bleeding person suffering inside that locked room and had law enforcement not investigated, we would be wondering why not, considering the facts before them."

"Obtaining a warrant was not practicable given the exigency of the situation. Further, and for the same reason, the officers needed to obtain immediate access to the locked room."

"During his search, Officer Ruha located numerous signs of drug use. This does not invalidate the search. '[W]hen under the totality of the circumstances an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function is shown, that determination is not negated by the officer's subjective law enforcement concerns.'"

"Police officers do not operate in a vacuum and may be confronted with evidence of criminal activity as they seek to execute tasks that are not related to law enforcement."

"Again, we recognize that the officers may have had other subjective, enforcement-related interests at this time. In particular, Officer Ruha testified that he heard a running fan behind the locked door and smelled marijuana.... The potential for the presence of marijuana in the locked room did not render it impossible that there were also injured parties in that room."

"We conclude that the officers in this case exercised their community caretaker function reasonably. Although the nature of the officers' intrusion was substantial, the public interest to be served by the intrusion was also substantial, and the nature of the intrusion was strictly limited to the requirements of the situation."

Quotes from the dissent written by Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson "I agree with Justice David T. Prosser that the community caretaker exception is important but cannot be interpreted so broadly as to swallow the Fourth Amendment."

"Justice Rebecca G. Bradley was appointed to the court after the court heard oral argument and tentatively decided the instant case on September 18, 2015. Yet unlike New Richmond News and the four other cases from September and October in which opinions have been issued (in which Justice Rebecca G. Bradley did not participate), Justice Rebecca G. Bradley participates in the instant case."

"The vote in the instant case is 4- 3, with Justice Rebecca G. Bradley as part of the majority of four. Without Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's vote, this case would result in a tie vote. The decision of the court of appeals would be affirmed. With Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's vote, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed."

"The process when a new justice joins the court after a case has been heard but before an opinion is released is as follows: The justices who originally participated in the case, without the new justice's input, decide whether to reargue the case. The new justice may participate in reargument and subsequent proceedings No precedent appears to exist in the United States Supreme Court or in this court for a new justice who did not participate in oral argument to participate in the case without reargument." ​

​"In the instant case, which predates Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's appointment to the court, Justice Rebecca G. Bradley participates without a reargument. Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's participation in some (but not all) cases predating her appointment to the court, and participation in those cases without a reargument appear to be internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the court's prior practice and the practices in the United States Supreme Court. "

Quotes from the dissent written by Justice David T. Prosser (with Justices Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley)

"The majority's "expansive conception of community caretaking transforms community caretaking from a narrow exception into a powerful investigatory tool. No longer limited to the purpose of allowing the State to rely upon evidence obtained by law enforcement officers incidental to their provision of valuable services to the public, community caretaking becomes an end in itself. Officers can now easily conduct a warrantless search in the name of 'community caretaking'; they must merely articulate a hypothetical community need——here, checking to see whether an injured person was trapped in the closet——based on circumstances that they observe. Conveniently, they may then retain any evidence of criminal activity that comes into their plain view as they conduct their community caretaking search."

"In my view, the officer's observations on the second floor, followed by Charles's refusal to give consent to open the locked door, provided ample probable cause for a search warrant for the locked room to search for drugs. Conversely, the officers would have been hard pressed to make a case for a search warrant to find a body in some condition behind the door. Officers had already accounted for other known occupants of the house, including a basement tenant."

"From the outset in this case, after seeing Antony, the police thought that a crime might have been committed. If a crime had been committed, there might have been other victims. However, this 'theory' was pursued to extreme lengths when an officer postulated that a deceased or injured person might be found behind a locked door, knowing that marijuana would almost certainly be found beyond the locked door."

"As occurred here, officers could point to facts and——without demonstrating probable cause or even reasonable suspicion——use those facts to set forth a theory that a person in a building requires immediate police assistance."

"The majority's embrace of a broad, ever-expanding version of the exception risks transforming a shield for evidence encountered incidental to community caretaking into an investigatory sword....Allowing law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches based on a mere theory of community need——and without making a showing of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion——completely undermines the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement."